“Historical materialism”的意思、由来-开放百科全书

Historical materialism is materialist as it does not believe that history has been driven by individual's consciousness or ideals, but rather ascribes to the philosophical monism that matter is the fundamental substance of nature and henceforth the driving force in all of world history; this drove Marx and other historical materialists to abandon ideas such as rights (e.g. "right to life, liberty, and property" as liberalism professed). In contrast, idealists believe that human consciousness creates reality rather than the materialist conception that material reality creates human consciousness. This put Marx in direct conflict with groups like the liberals and egoists who believed that reality was governed by some set of ideals.^[3]

Historical materialism looks for the causes of developments and changes in human society in the means by which humans collectively produce the necessities of life. It posits that social classes and the relationship between them, along with the political structures and ways of thinking in society, are founded on and reflect contemporary economic activity.{{sfn|Fromm|1961}}

Since Marx's time, the theory has been modified and expanded by some writers. It now has many Marxist and non-Marxist variants. Many Marxists contend that historical materialism is a scientific approach to the study of history: scientific socialism.^[5]

History and development

Origins

While Marx never used the words "historical materialism" to describe his theory of history, it nevertheless first appears in Friedrich Engels' 1880 work Utopian and Scientific,^[6] to which Marx wrote an introduction for the French edition.^[7] By 1892, Friedrich Engels indicated that he accepted the broader usage of the term "historical materialism," writing in an introduction to an English edition of Socialism: Utopian and Scientific;

Marx's initial interest in materialism is evident in his doctoral thesis which compared the philosophical atomism of Democritus with the materialist philosophy of Epicurus^[9]{{sfn|Foster|1999}} as well as his close reading of Adam Smith and other writers in classical political economy.

Marx and Engels first state and detail their materialist conception of history within the pages of The German Ideology, written in 1845. The book, which structural Marxists such as Louis Althusser^[10] regard as Marx's first 'mature' work, is a lengthy polemic against Marx and Engels' fellow Young Hegelians and contemporaries Ludwig Feuerbach, Bruno Bauer, and Max Stirner. Stirner's 1844 work The Unique and its Property had a particularly strong impact^[11] on the worldview of Marx and Engels: Stirner's blistering critique of morality and whole-hearted embrace of egoism prompted the pair to formulate a conception of socialism along lines of self-interest rather than simple humanism alone, grounding that conception in the scientific study of history.^[12]

Perhaps Marx's clearest formulation of historical materialism resides in the preface to his 1859 book A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy:

Continued development

In a foreword to his essay Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy (1886), three years after Marx's death, Engels claimed confidently that "the Marxist world outlook has found representatives far beyond the boundaries of Germany and Europe and in all the literary languages of the world."{{sfn|Engels|1946}} Indeed, in the years after Marx and Engels' deaths, "historical materialism" was identified as a distinct philosophical doctrine and was subsequently elaborated upon and systematized by Orthodox Marxist and Marxist–Leninist thinkers such as Eduard Bernstein, Karl Kautsky, Georgi Plekhanov and Nikolai Bukharin. This occurred despite the fact that many of Marx's earlier works on historical materialism, including The German Ideology, remained unpublished until the 1930's.

In the early years of the 20th century, historical materialism was often treated by socialist writers as interchangeable with dialectical materialism, a formulation never used by Marx or Engels.^[13] According to many Marxists influenced by Soviet Marxism, historical materialism is a specifically sociological method, while dialectical materialism refers to the more general, abstract philosophy underlying Marx and Engels' body of work. This view is based on Joseph Stalin's pamphlet Dialectical and Historical Materialism, as well as textbooks issued by the Institute of Marxism–Leninism of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.^[14]

The substantivist ethnographic approach of economic anthropologist and sociologist Karl Polanyi bears similarities to historical materialism. Polanyi distinguishes between the formal definition of economics as the logic of rational choice between limited resources and a substantive definition of economics as the way humans make their living from their natural and social environment.^[15] In The Great Transformation (1944), Polanyi asserts that both the formal and substantive definitions of economics hold true under capitalism, but that the formal definition falls short when analyzing the economic behavior of pre-industrial societies, whose behavior was more often governed by redistribution and reciprocity.^[16] While Polanyi was influenced by Marx, he rejected the primacy of economic determinism in shaping the course of history, arguing that rather than being a realm unto itself, an economy is embedded within its contemporary social institutions, such as the state in the case of the market economy.^[17]

Perhaps the most notable recent exploration of historical materialism is G. A. Cohen's A Defence,{{sfn|Cohen|2000}} which inaugurated the school of Analytical Marxism. Cohen advances a sophisticated technological-determinist interpretation of Marx "in which history is, fundamentally, the growth of human productive power, and forms of society rise and fall according as they enable or impede that growth."^[18]

Several scholars have argued that historical materialism ought to be revised in the light of modern scientific knowledge.{{who|date=December 2018}} Jürgen Habermas believes historical materialism "needs revision in many respects", especially because it has ignored the significance of communicative action.^[19]

In the early 1980s, Paul Hirst and Barry Hindess elaborated a structural Marxist interpretation of historical materialism.^[21]

Key ideas

Historical materialism builds upon the idea of historical progress that became popular in philosophy during the Enlightenment, which asserted that the development of human society has progressed through a series of stages, from hunting and gathering, through pastoralism and cultivation, to commercial society.{{sfn|Meek|1976}} Historical materialism rests on a foundation of metaphysical materialism, in which matter is considered primary and ideas, thought, and consciousness are secondary, i.e. consciousness and human ideas about the universe result from material conditions rather than vice versa.^[25]

Historical materialism springs from a fundamental underlying reality of human existence: that in order for subsequent generations of human beings to survive, it is necessary for them to produce and reproduce the material requirements of everyday life.{{sfn|Seligman|1901|p=163}} Marx then extended this premise by asserting the importance of the fact that, in order to carry out production and exchange, people have to enter into very definite social relations, or more specifically, "relations of production". However, production does not get carried out in the abstract, or by entering into arbitrary or random relations chosen at will, but instead are determined by the development of the existing forces of production.^[26] How production is accomplished depends on the character of society's productive forces, which refers to the means of production such as the tools, instruments, technology, land, raw materials, and human knowledge and abilities in terms of using these means of production. ^[27] The relations of production are determined by the level and character of these productive forces present at any given time in history. In all societies, Human beings collectively work on nature but, especially in class societies, do not do the same work. In such societies, there is a division of labour in which people not only carry out different kinds of labour but occupy different social positions on the basis of those differences. The most important such division is that between manual and intellectual labour whereby one class produces a given society's wealth while another is able to monopolize control the means of production and so both governs that society and lives off of the wealth generated by the labouring classes.^[28]

Marx identified society's relations of production (arising on the basis of given productive forces) as the economic base of society. He also explained that on the foundation of the economic base there arise certain political institutions, laws, customs, culture, etc., and ideas, ways of thinking, morality, etc. These constitute the political/ideological "superstructure" of society. This superstructure not only has its origin in the economic base, but its features also ultimately correspond to the character and development of that economic base, i.e. the way people organize society, its relations of production, and its mode of production.^[9] G.A. Cohen argues in A Defence that a society’s superstructure stabilizes or entrenches its economic structure, but that the economic base is primary and the superstructure secondary. That said, it is precisely because the superstructure strongly affects the base that the base selects that superstructure. As Charles Taylor puts it, "These two directions of influence are so far from being rivals that they are actually complementary. The functional explanation requires that the secondary factor tend to have a causal effect on the primary, for this dispositional fact is the key feature of the explanation."^[29] It is because the influences in the two directions are not symmetrical that it makes sense to speak of primary and secondary factors, even where one is giving a non-reductionist, "holistic" account of social interaction.

Key implications in the study and understanding of history

Many writers note that historical materialism represented a revolution in human thought, and a break from previous ways of understanding the underlying basis of change within various human societies. As Marx puts it, "a coherence arises in human history"{{sfn|Marx|Engels|1968|p=660}} because each generation inherits the productive forces developed previously and in turn further develops them before passing them on to the next generation. Further, this coherence increasingly involves more of humanity the more the productive forces develop and expand to bind people together in production and exchange.

This understanding counters the notion that human history is simply a series of accidents, either without any underlying cause or caused by supernatural beings or forces exerting their will on society. Historical materialism posits that history is made as a result of struggle between different social classes rooted in the underlying economic base. According to G.A. Cohen, author of A Defence, the level of development of society’s productive forces (i.e., society’s technological powers, including tools, machinery, raw materials, and labour power) determines society’s economic structure, in the sense that it selects a structure of economic relations that tends best to facilitate further technological growth. In historical explanation, the overall primacy of the productive forces can be understood in terms of two key theses:

In saying that productive forces have a universal tendency to develop, Cohen’s reading of Marx is not claiming that productive forces always develop or that they never decline. Their development may be temporarily blocked, but because human beings have a rational interest in developing their capacities to control their interactions with external nature in order to satisfy their wants, the historical tendency is strongly toward further development of these capacities.

Broadly, the importance of the study of history lies in the ability of history to explain the present. John Bellamy Foster asserts that historical materialism is important in explaining history from a scientific perspective, by following the scientific method, as opposed to belief-system theories like creationism and intelligent design, which do not base their beliefs on verifiable facts and hypotheses.{{sfn|Foster|Clark|2008}}

Trajectory of historical development

The main modes of production that Marx identified generally include primitive communism, slave society, feudalism, and capitalism. In each of these social stages, people interacted with nature and production in different ways. Any surplus from that production was distributed differently as well. To Marx, ancient societies (e.g. Rome and Greece) were based on a ruling class of citizens and a class of slaves; feudalism was based on nobles and serfs; and capitalism based on the capitalist class (bourgeoisie) and the working class (proletariat).

Primitive communism

To historical materialists, hunter-gatherer societies, also known as primitive communist societies, were structured so that economic forces and political forces were one and the same. Societies generally did not have a state, property, money, nor social classes. This inherently makes them communist in social relations although primitive in productive forces.

The ancient mode of production

Slave societies, the ancient mode of production, were formed as productive forces advanced, namely due to agriculture and the abandonment of nomadic society. Slave societies were marked by their use of slavery and minor private property; production for use was the primary form of production. Slave society is considered by historical materialists to be the first class society formed of citizens and slaves. Surplus was distributed to the citizens, which exploited the slaves.^[31]

The feudal mode of production

The feudal mode of production emerged from slave society (e.g. in Europe after the collapse of the Roman Empire), coinciding with the further advance of productive forces. Feudal society's class relations were marked by an entrenched nobility and serfdom. Simple commodity production existed in the form of artisans and merchants. This class would grow in size and eventually form the bourgeoisie. Despite this, production was still largely for use.

The capitalist mode of production

The capitalist mode of production materialized when the rising bourgeois class grew large enough to institute a shift in the productive forces. The bourgeoisie's primary form of production was in the form of commodities, i.e. they produced with the purpose of exchanging their products. As this commodity production grew, the old feudal systems came into conflict with the new capitalist ones; feudalism was then eschewed as capitalism emerged. The Bourgeoisie's influence expanded until commodity production became fully generalized.

With the rise of the bourgeoisie came the concepts of nation-states and nationalism. Marx argued that capitalism completely separated the economic and political forces. Marx took the state to be a sign of this separation — it existed to manage the massive conflicts of interest which arose between the proletariat and bourgeoisie in capitalist society. Marx observed that nations arose at the time of the appearance of capitalism on the basis of community of economic life, territory, language, certain features of psychology, and traditions of everyday life and culture. In the Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels explained that the coming into existence of nation-states was the result of class struggle, specifically of the capitalist class's attempts to overthrow the institutions of the former ruling class. Prior to capitalism, nations were not the primary political form.^[33] Vladimir Lenin shared a similar view on nation-states.^[34] There were two opposite tendencies in the development of nations under capitalism. One of them wass expressed in the activation of national life and national movements against the oppressors. The other was expressed in the expansion of links among nations, the breaking down of barriers between them, the establishment of a unified economy and of a world market (globalization); the first is a characteristic of lower-stage capitalism and the second a more advanced form, furthering the unity of the international proletariat.{{sfn|Lenin|n.d.}} Alongside this development was the forced removal of the serfdom from the countryside to the city, forming a new proletarian class. This caused the countryside to become reliant on large cities. Subsequently, the new capitalist mode of production also began expanding into other societies that had not yet developed a capitalist system (e.g. the scramble for Africa).

Under capitalism, the Bourgeoisie and Proletariat become the two primary classes. Class struggle between these two classes was now prevalent. With the emergence of capitalism, productive forces were now able to flourish, causing the industrial revolution in Europe. Despite this, however, the productive forces eventually reach a point where they can no longer expand, causing the same collapse that occurred at the end of feudalism:

The communist mode of production

The lower-stage of communism

The bourgeoisie, as Marx stated in the Communist Manifesto, has "forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons — the modern working class — the proletarians."^[37] Historical materialists henceforth believe that the modern proletariat are the new revolutionary class in relation to the bourgeoisie, in the same way that the bourgeoisie was the revolutionary class in relation to the nobility under feudalism.^[38] The proletariat, then, must seize power as the new revolutionary class in a dictatorship of the proletariat.

Marx also describes a communist society developed alongside the proletarian dictatorship:

This lower-stage of communist society is, according to Marx, analogous to the lower-stage of capitalist society, i.e. the transition from feudalism to capitalism, in that both societies are "stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges." The emphasis on the idea that modes of production do not exist in isolation but rather are materialized from the previous existence is a core idea in historical materialism.

There is considerable debate among communists regarding the nature of this society. Some such as Joseph Stalin, Fidel Castro, and other Marxist-Leninists believe that the lower-stage of communism constitutes its own mode of production, which they call socialist rather than communist. Marxist-Leninists believe that this society may still maintain the concepts of property, money, and commodity production.^[41] Other communists argue that the lower-stage of communism is just that; a communist mode of production, without commodities or money, stamped with the birthmarks of capitalism.

The higher-stage of communism

To Marx, the higher-stage of communist society is a free association of producers which has successfully negated all remnants of capitalism, notably the concepts of states, nationality, sexism, families, alienation, social classes, money, property, commodities, the bourgeoisie, the proletariat, division of labor, cities and countryside, class struggle, religion, universal truths, morality, and markets. It is the negation of capitalism.^[42]^[43]

Warnings against misuse

In the 1872 Preface to the French edition of Das Kapital Vol. 1, Marx emphasized that "There is no royal road to science, and only those who do not dread the fatiguing climb of its steep paths have a chance of gaining its luminous summits."^[45] Reaching a scientific understanding required conscientious, painstaking research, instead of philosophical speculation and unwarranted, sweeping generalizations. Having abandoned abstract philosophical speculation in his youth, Marx himself showed great reluctance during the rest of his life about offering any generalities or universal truths about human existence or human history.

Marx himself took care to indicate that he was only proposing a guideline to historical research (Leitfaden or Auffassung), and was not providing any substantive "theory of history" or "grand philosophy of history", let alone a "master-key to history". Engels expressed irritation with dilettante academics who sought to knock up their skimpy historical knowledge as quickly as possible into some grand theoretical system that would explain "everything" about history. He opined that historical materialism and the theory of modes of production was being used as an excuse for not studying history.^[46]

The first explicit and systematic summary of the materialist interpretation of history published was Engels's book Herr Eugen Dühring's Revolution in Science, written with Marx's approval and guidance, and often referred to as the Anti-Dühring. One of the polemic's was to ridicule the easy "world schematism" of philosophers, who invented the latest wisdom from behind their writing desks. Towards the end of his life, in 1877, Marx wrote a letter to the editor of the Russian paper Otetchestvennye Zapisky, which significantly contained the following disclaimer:

Marx goes on to illustrate how the same factors can in different historical contexts produce very different results, so that quick and easy generalizations are not really possible. To indicate how seriously Marx took research, when he died, his estate contained several cubic metres of Russian statistical publications (it was, as the old Marx observed, in Russia that his ideas gained most influence).

But what is true is that insofar as Marx and Engels regarded historical processes as law-governed processes, the possible future directions of historical development were to a great extent limited and conditioned by what happened before. Retrospectively, historical processes could be understood to have happened by necessity in certain ways and not others, and to some extent at least, the most likely variants of the future could be specified on the basis of careful study of the known facts.

Towards the end of his life, Engels commented several times about the abuse of historical materialism.

Criticisms

Philosopher of science Karl Popper, in The Poverty of Historicism and Conjectures and Refutations, critiqued such claims of the explanatory power or valid application of historical materialism by arguing that it could explain or explain away any fact brought before it, making it unfalsifiable and thus pseudoscientific. Similar arguments were brought by Leszek Kołakowski in Main Currents of Marxism.{{sfnm |1a1=Kołakowski |1y=1978 |2a1=Popper |2y=1957}}

In his 1940 essay Theses on the Philosophy of History, scholar Walter Benjamin compares historical materialism to the Turk, an 18th-century device which was promoted as a mechanized automaton which could defeat skilled chess players but actually concealed a human who controlled the machine. Benjamin suggested that, despite Marx's claims to scientific objectivity, historical materialism was actually quasi-religious. Like the Turk, wrote Benjamin, "[t]he puppet called 'historical materialism' is always supposed to win. It can do this with no further ado against any opponent, so long as it employs the services of theology, which as everyone knows is small and ugly and must be kept out of sight." Benjamin's friend and colleague Gershom Scholem would argue that Benjamin's critique of historical materialism was so definitive that, as Mark Lilla would write, "nothing remains of historical materialism ... but the term itself".^[50] However, Benjamin was arguing against a mechanistic form of historical materialist explanation then prevalent in Stalin's Russia, and was himself a committed, if unorthodox, Marxist. Later in "On the Concept of History", he writes:

See also

References

Footnotes

1. ^{{Cite web|url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01b.htm|title=The German Ideology|last=Marx|first=Karl|date=1845|website=www.marxists.org|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=2019-03-05}}
2. ^{{cite book |last1=Marx |first1=Karl |title=The German Ideology |date=1845 |accessdate=12 March 2019 |url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm}}
3. ^{{cite book |last1=Marx |first1=Karl |title=The German Ideology |date=1845 |accessdate=12 March 2019|url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm}}
4. ^{{cite book |last1=Marx |first1=Karl |title=The German Ideology |date=1845 |accessdate=12 March 2019|url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm}}
5. ^{{cite web |last=Woods |first=Alan |year=2016 |title=What Is Historical Materialism? |url=http://www.marxist.com/an-introduction-to-historical-materialism.htm |website=In Defence of Marxism |publisher=International Marxist Tendency |access-date=28 November 2017}}
6. ^{{cite web |url=https://marxists.catbull.com/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm |title= Socialism: Utopian and Scientific |author= Friedrich Engels |website=marxists.org |publisher=Marxists Internet Archive |access-date=2018-09-06}}
7. ^{{cite web |url=https://marxists.catbull.com/archive/marx/works/1880/05/04.htm |title=Introduction to the French Edition of Engels' Socialism: Utopian and Scientific |author=Karl Marx |website=marxists.org |publisher= Marxists Internet Archive| access-date=2018-09-06}}
8. ^{{cite web |author=Frederick Engels |url=http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/int-mat.htm |title=Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (Introduction - Materialism) |publisher=Marxists Internet Archive |access-date=7 December 2011}}
9. ^¹{{cite web |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/ |title=Karl Marx (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) |website=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=The Metaphysics Research Lab, Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI), Stanford University |access-date=2018-09-06}}
10. ^{{cite book|last=Althusser |first=Louis |title=For Marx |publisher= The Penguin Press |date=1969 |page=59 |url=http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/FM65NB.html}}
11. ^{{cite web|url= https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/max-stirner/ |title=Max Stirner (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) |website=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=The Metaphysics Research Lab, Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI), Stanford University |access-date=2018-09-06}}
12. ^{{cite book |last=Welsh |first=John F. |title=Max Stirner's Dialectical Egoism, A new interpretation |pages=20–23 |publisher=Lexington Books |date=2010}}
13. ^{{cite web|url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/fromm/works/1961/man/ch02.htm|title=Marx's Conception of Man |author= Erich Fromm |publisher=Marxists.org|accessdate=2018-09-06}}
14. ^{{cite web |url=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htm |title= Dialectical and Historical Materialism |author= Joseph Stalin |website=marxists.org |publisher= Marxists Internet Archive| access-date=2018-09-06}}
15. ^{{cite book|author=Polanyi, K.|title=The Great Transformation | location=New York|year=1944| pages=44–49}}
16. ^{{cite book|title=ibid. |pages=41}}
17. ^{{Cite book|last=Hann |first=Chris |title=Economic Anthropology (The International Encyclopedia of Anthropology) |pages = 1–16|publisher=John Wiley & Sons, 2018 |date=2017-09-29|doi=10.1002/9781118924396.wbiea2194 |chapter = Economic Anthropology|isbn = 9780470657225}}
18. ^G. A. Cohen, Karl Marx’s Theory of History (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978), p. x.
19. ^{{cite journal |last1=Habermas |first1=Jürgen |date=Autumn 1975 |title=Toward a Reconstruction of Historical Materialism |url=https://www.unige.ch/sciences-societe/socio/files/3514/0533/6053/Habermas_1975.pdf |journal=Theory and Society |volume=2 |issue=3 |pages=287-300 |doi= |access-date=2018-12-05 }}
20. ^{{cite book|title=Science, Class and Society: on the formation of Sociology and Historical Materialism |last= Therborn |first=Göran |publisher= London: Verso Books |date=1980}}
21. ^{{cite book|first1=Paul |last1=Hirst |first2=Barry |last2= Hindess |title=Pre-Capitalist Modes of Production | location=London |publisher=Routledge & Kegan Paul |year=1975 |pages=}}
22. ^{{cite book|first1=Bob |last1=Jessop |editor1-last=Brown |editor1-first=A |editor2-last=Fleetwood |editor2-first=S |editor3-last=Roberts |editor3-first=J |chapter=Capitalism, the Regulation Approach, and Critical Realism |title=Critical Realism and Marxism | location=London |publisher=Routledge |year=2001 |pages=}}
23. ^{{cite news |last=Douglas |first=Angus |date=2015-12-16 |title=Marxism versus Spiral Dynamics Integral |url=https://www.news24.com/MyNews24/marxism-versus-spiral-dynamics-integral-20151116 |work=News24 |location=South Africa |access-date=2018-12-05}}
24. ^{{cite magazine |last=Kay |first=Hubert |date=18 October 1948 |title=Karl Marx |magazine=Life |page=66}}
25. ^{{Cite web |url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/materialism-philosophy |title=Materialism |website=britannica.com |publisher=Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. |last=Carswell Smart |first=John Jamieson |date= |accessdate=December 5, 2018}}
26. ^{{cite book |last=Marx |first=Karl |date=1999 |title=Capital: Critique of Political Economy |volume=3 |chapter=48 |url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p2.htm |publisher=Marxists Internet Archive |accessdate=2018-12-05}}
27. ^{{cite book|url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/poverty-philosophy/ch02.htm|title=The Poverty of Philosophy|last=Marx|first=Karl|date=1999|publisher=Marxists Internet Archive|location=marxists.org|chapter=2|accessdate=2018-12-05}}
28. ^{{Cite book|title=The Revolutionary Ideas of Karl Marx|last=Callinicos|first=Alex|publisher=Haymarket Books|year=2011|isbn=|location=Chicago|pages=99}}
29. ^Charles Taylor, “Critical Notice”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy 10 (1980), p. 330.
30. ^Cohen, p. 134.
31. ^{{cite book |last1=Harman |first1=C |title=A People's History of the World |publisher=Bookmarks}}
32. ^{{cite book |last1=Marx |first1=Karl |title=The Communist Manifesto |date=1848 |location=London |url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm#007 |accessdate=12 March 2019}}
33. ^{{cite web |last=Dixon |first=Norm |title=Marx, Engels and Lenin on the National Question |url=http://links.org.au/node/164 |website=Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal |access-date=21 April 2018}}
34. ^{{cite web |title=В.И. Ленин. О национальном вопросе и национальной политике |url=http://leninism.su/works/115-conspect/4248-v-i-lenin-o-natsionalnom-voprose-i-natsionalnoj-politike.html?showall= |language=ru |access-date=21 April 2018}}
35. ^{{cite book |last1=Marx |first1=Karl |title=The Communist Manifesto |date=1848 |location=London |url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm#007 |accessdate=4 April 2019}}
36. ^{{cite book |last1=Marx |first1=Karl |title=The Communist Manifesto |date=1848 |location=London |url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm#007 |accessdate=12 March 2019}}
37. ^{{cite book |last1=Marx |first1=Karl |title=The Communist Manifesto |date=1848 |location=London |url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm#007 |accessdate=12 March 2019}}
38. ^{{cite book |last1=Marx |first1=Karl |title=Critique of the Gotha Programme |url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm |accessdate=12 March 2019}}
39. ^{{cite book |last1=Marx |first1=Karl |title=Critique of the Gotha Programme |url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm |accessdate=12 March 2019}}
40. ^{{cite book |last1=Marx |first1=Karl |title=Critique of the Gotha Programme |url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm |accessdate=12 March 2019}}
41. ^{{cite book |last1=Stalin |first1=Joseph |title=Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR |url=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/index.htm |accessdate=12 March 2019}}
42. ^{{cite book |last1=Marx |first1=Karl |title=The Communist Manifesto |date=1848 |location=London |url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm#007 |accessdate=12 March 2019}}
43. ^{{cite book |last1=Marx |first1=Karl |title=The German Ideology |date=1845 |accessdate=12 March 2019|url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm}}
44. ^{{cite book |last1=Marx |first1=Karl |title=Critique of the Gotha Programme |url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm |accessdate=12 March 2019}}
45. ^{{cite book |last=Marx |first=Karl |date=1999 |title=Capital: Critique of Political Economy |volume=1 |chapter=Preface |url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch48.htm |location=marxists.org |publisher=Marxists Internet Archive |accessdate=2018-12-05}}
46. ^Engels, cited approvingly by E. P. Thompson in '[https://www.marxists.org/archive/thompson-ep/1965/english.htm The peculiarities of the English],' Socialist Register, 1965.
47. ^{{cite web |url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/11/russia.htm |title=Letter from Marx to Editor of the Otecestvenniye Zapisky |publisher=Marxists Internet Archive |access-date=10 November 2018}}
48. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_08_05.htm |title=Letters: Marx–Engels Correspondence 1890 |publisher=Marxists Internet Archive |access-date=7 December 2011}}
49. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1893/letters/93_07_14.htm |title=Letters: Marx–Engels Correspondence 1893 |publisher=Marxists Internet Archive |access-date=7 December 2011}}
50. ^{{cite magazine |last=Lilla |first=Mark |author-link=Mark Lilla |date=25 May 1995 |title=The Riddle of Walter Benjamin |magazine=The New York Review of Books}}

Bibliography